Have you ever noticed how preview for video games tend to be overwhelmingly …

Share this story

When is the last time you read a preview for a game that was negative? It's a common complaint in the world of game writing: preview coverage is hilariously one-sided, and serves only to get people excited about games that could be years away from completion. Is it a matter of corruption? Bribery? Something even more insidious?

While conspiracy theories are fun, the truth is that the press is only presented information about games after that information has been heavily polished and prepared. Preview events—including demos at shows such as E3—are highly orchestrated, controlled affairs. Interviews take place with PR representatives in the room, with skittish developers looking at their handlers when asked a tough question. The real problem is that there is simply too much at stake to present anything but a perfect experience.

You are shown what they want, when they want

During an event such as E3 or the Game Developers Conference, the press lines up to see upcoming games, and small sections of the releases are prepared well in advance. The publishers know what will be shown and how it will be played. Developers are given pat, repeatable answers to common questions.

"It's hard, because it's so rare that I feel like I walk away from a preview with an accurate sense of what a game is like," Justin McElroy, reviews editor for Joystiq.com told Ars. "I might understand some of the mechanics, but what do I know about how the product will all come together in the end?" He describes a mythical situation that would lead to a more complete picture of the game. "Ideally, I like to play the first 1/2 hour to hour of a game by myself, with the opportunity to get clarification on what's being worked on/fixed."

You're not allowed to play the game for yourself, so interaction with the developers or PR person gives you an artificial idea of how easy, or hard, the game is to play. "The worst is PR flacks who are kibitzing as you're playing, telling you exactly which buttons to press at which times. Half the fun for me is figuring out a game's mechanics, which is impossible if you're standing over my shoulder and telling me which buttons to press at which moments," McElroy says. "Stop it. Also, stop telling me that you're shocked at how well I'm doing or that I'm the best player that day. I know what you're doing."

While it can be a bit uncomfortable to have a PR representative feeding you praise as you play through a game, some preview events are outright depressing. At one invite-only party during a past E3, the press was allowed to play a single part of a single level of an anticipated game. You waited in line, were given a wiped down controller, and were booted once you completed that section of the game. The controller was then disinfected and handed to the person behind you so they could play the same portion of the game they had just watched other members of the press play a dozen or so times. The good news? Free drinks.

Even the worst games have a moment or two of bliss, and when you have the ability to cherry-pick what sections are shown to the press, it's easy to create the illusion of quality. A ten-minute section that shows off a cool moment, a speech about what's coming from the developer, and a USB drive filled with screenshots prepared by PR, and the preview is basically written for a lazy writer.

There are many tricks to a good demo, but we've found that scene selection may be the most important. Joystiq's McElroy concurs: "Being selective about what section is being shown is probably the most common. It's tricky to find a bit of the game that's easy enough for a newbie to enjoy, but also shows off the game at its very best, so devs tend to be pretty picky about what section is being played." This leads to games that leave shows with nearly insane levels of buzz, only to disappoint when the full experience is in the hands of gamers.

Budgets are getting bigger, early hype is too important

Previews of games are a contentious topic, and one of the most fascinating conversations on the topic I've ever had came from a late-night phone call with Penny Arcade's Jerry "Tycho" Holkins. This is a man with amazing power in the gaming industry; one PR person once told me that a positive mention in a Penny Arcade news post was like "being touched by the light." Despite, or maybe because of, this level of influence, Holkins skips E3 and preview events. He simply doesn't feel like you get an accurate picture of the games being shown.

The problem is that budgets are huge, and early buzz from the press is key for that all-important huge first week of sales. "They cannot afford to be frank, they can't afford to show us [content that's not perfect]," Holkins told Ars. "There's too much riding on it, it's too expensive. It's not realistic for them to show us something that is interpretable."

Holkins also points out another fact that's rarely discussed when talking about preview coverage: readers may not want brutal honesty. "Do people expect something else? Do they expect something broader? They expect fair reviews. I think in general people read previews as a form of entertainment," he says. "I could be wrong. I know what it is to see a preview, I know how manufactured those can be, but I understand why they are that way."

Games are, for better or worse, an emotional topic for many people, and minds can be made up long before someone actually plays a game. A negative preview of a much-anticipated game can lead to vitriol in comments, and hate mail flooding your inbox. If you have the choice between writing about a game you like, or being critical of a game that is sure to cause reader backlash, it's no surprise that so many writers stick to games they can write positive things about. I asked Holkins if he'd rather write about a good game than a bad one. "Of course, it's more fun!" he said immediately. "At my best, I act as an advocate, and also I have the benefit of choosing what I write about. I write about things that are interesting to me, for the most part." Most writers and gaming outlets don't have that luxury, but the pull of writing about something that excites you, rather than something that let you down, is strong.

Where is the value?

Still, going to E3 every year is worthwhile, no matter how stage-managed the coverage can often be. By asking pointed questions, you can gain insights from developers. At GDC this year, Sony allowed the press to spend long, uninterrupted periods of time playing with the PlayStation Move, and that sort of experience is invaluable for reporting on the upcoming technology.

Many preview events are also worthwhile: when we played Halo: Reach the press was simply given a short presentation on each game mode before we were able to play the game on rather modest stations for long periods of time. When the event is structured in such a way that the game itself is the centerpiece, and not a speech or a lengthy presentation, real coverage is possible.

One of my favorite E3 memories was being given an hour to play Fallout 3 well before the game's release, while developers prowled the room simply watching people play. We were allowed to go anywhere we'd like and do anything that caught our fancy, and no one gave us gameplay tips unless we asked for guidance.

There is also another trend that seems to come and go: letting the press give impressions based on very early, finished software. When we received our review copy of Alan Wake it came on a retail, pressed disc, with an embargo that included the ability to preview a portion of the game's beginning immediately. After e-mailing Nintendo, I found that a similar deal was in place for Super Mario Galaxy 2—while the full review was embargoed, we could run a preview of the game up until World 3. This is the finished code, the game that readers will be buying when it's released. Given the ability to write about the game in your own home, without anyone breathing down your neck, is a godsend for making well-informed opinions and sharing them with readers weeks before the game's release.

Giving reviewers the final code also sends a subtle signal to the public: we believe in our game, and want you to spread the word about it. These previews of actual code, or nearly finished code, conducted far away from the bright lights of trade shows or preview events, are as close as you can get to an authoritative preview, as they have the possibility of being the most pure.

Previews are always going to be in demand. Readers want all the information they can get about the games they want to play, and writers love seeing new games and writing about them. So previews will always present a challenge for coverage, as the publishers hold nearly all the cards: what is shown, who it is shown to, and in what context. The best that journalists can do is give as much information as possible to readers, while digging for as much data as possible as they can in their time with the game.